camelotwebtools-mcp

camelot_jwt_decoder

Idempotent

Decode JWT tokens locally to inspect claims without sending secrets to external servers.

Instructions

JWT Decoder: Decode and inspect JSON Web Tokens locally without sending secret tokens to external servers.. Local browser processing. Canonical URL: https://www.camelotwebtools.com/tools/jwt-decoder

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	JWT token string to decode and inspect

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	Execution status of the tool (success or error)
`prefillUrl`	Yes	Direct deep-link URL to view, edit, and export in Camelot Web Tools
`canonicalUrl`	Yes	Canonical web URL for this tool on camelotwebtools.com
`documentTitle`	Yes	Title of the generated document, report, or calculation output
`documentMarkdown`	Yes	Complete structured output and body formatted in clean Markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: local browser processing and no transmission of secret tokens to external servers. This is meaningful behavioral/privacy information an agent needs before invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the core purpose. Minor redundancy exists ('locally' and 'Local browser processing'), and the canonical URL is not essential for invocation, but overall the structure is compact and readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter, non-destructive tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, where it runs, the privacy benefit, and the expected input; nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already explains what the token is. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Decode and inspect JSON Web Tokens.' It also adds a distinctive scope—local processing without sending tokens to external servers—which sets it apart from unrelated siblings and makes the tool's intent unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear context: use when you need to decode JWT locally and avoid leaking secrets to external services. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but no sibling tool covers JWT decoding, so the guidance is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server